Not sure where to post this so I thought here were many think about carrying safely would be a good spot.

I have read in several threads in several different areas of the forum that some people do not like, want, or will use a striker fired pistol. As someone who is new and now has two revolvers and one striker fired pistol, I have much to learn and just wanted some who don't like striker fired pistols to elaborate.

Like many things, it comes down to personal choice so this is not meant to start a debate .... just a question from someone who knows very little about striker fired guns and would like to hear some opinions from those who have experience.

Had a Ruger Lc9s striker fired 9mm subcompact. Nice gun. Relatively short trigger pull. That is why I got the model with a safety. I know many object to a safety, but having had to keep one engage on all the different firearms I carried in the Corps, I just take them in stride. Really doesn't take much to disengage one if you practice doing it on the draw.

I now carry a Remington 380 that has no safety, but is a DAO trigger with a long trigger pull that it is very safe to pocket carry which is what I do.v

I personally do not have anything against striker fired in itself, but for carrying I prefer having a hammer on my gun. I like being able to place my thumb on the hammer when holstering so I know if the trigger were to get caught on something and start to move. Many feel it is not necessary if you are paying attention, but for me it is an added precaution that I like.

(1) People who reasonably prefer an exposed hammer to aid in holstering, or who just don't like the triggers. For them, it's a matter of personal preference and technique. I find this to be the most compelling objection--if I was expecting having to reholster, I'd probably select a DAO S&W automatic (a 3954, or thereabouts).

(2) People who desire a manual safety. Most folks that want one are normal individuals who just want one for whatever reason. Some people, though, view them as infallible safety devices. They're not--they can be accidentally nudged off, forgotten, and worn/damaged. Personally, a decent safety (not too big, not too difficult to manage) isn't a dealbreaker for me--I just don't feel like I ened one.

(3) People who fear the "partially-cocked" firing pin of the striker-fired design. This is a concern based on an incomplete understanding of how the mechanism works, and overconfidence in other mechanisms.

(4) People who object to the "short and light" trigger pull of a striker-fired pistol without a manual safety. I don't find as much fault with that objection, but I do disagree with it. Namely because people shot themselves with DA/SA automatics and DA revolvers when those were as popular as the polymer pistol is today.

Quote:

Hammer fired pistols more often then not also tend to be steel or aluminum frame, which I prefer. Strikers are almost always plastic.

You can toss most polymer pistols into a cement mixer, tumble them for a few hours, and still have a working pistol when you're done. You can bash them with hammers, drive over them with trucks...whatever you want.

Considering that I could not survive the same treatment, I figure that a polymer frame is tough enough.

Quote:

I believe hammer fired is also a safer platform then striker fired. I can't give you any statistics offhand but I would strongly suspect that more accidental discharges happen with striker pistols then any other type.

If four times as many people carry striker-fired designs as, say, DA/SAs, and there are four times as many NDs, then that means that, statistically-speaking, striker-fired pistols are DA/SAs.

But at the end of the day--it's a meaningless argument. It would be like if you refused to drink beer because you thought that's what drunk drivers chugged. We're not making statistical judgments--we're making personal choices.

Wise_A nailed the majority of reasons usually cited. For me it's the terrible triggers and that the majority are polymer, and ugly! I'm a 1911 guy, all of the things I like about 1911s are absent in polymer, striker fired pistols. That's why I don't own any.

It's a personal thing. I have many hammer-fired pistols and many striker-fired pistols. I have had plenty of success with each type at the range. I don't fear or worry about either. But I am old and I grew up with hammer-fired guns. I am a sucker for a great single action trigger and I have no problem at all with the dreaded DA to SA transition. In fact, I kind of like the idea that it takes a serious, deliberate effort on that first shot (or all shots) in a potentially deadly confrontational situation.

My strong preference (getting stronger all the time) for all-metal over cheap plastic enters into this as well... and yet I picked up a plastic, hammer-fired HK P30SK last year and a hammer-fired SP2022 was one of my favorite range pistols before they disappeared temporarily, motivating me to dig deeper and buy a P226 instead. Given a choice today between a "modern" P320 and an "old" SP2022, I'd go with the latter for certain.

But that said, in ultra-compact true pocket pistols (what I carry when I carry), I don't see much advantage of one system over the other (i.e., enclosed or semi-enclosed hammer vs. striker). I have some of each and don't really give the firing system a second thought as long as they work.

I've owned and carried a Glock 23. I had no major complaints. I do prefer hammer-fired DA/SA or DAO/DAK. My first handgun was a Beretta 92FS and that's what I've done most of my early training with. One of the things I was taught was to keep my thumb on the hammer when holstering. I like that little extra bit of safety margin. Even now when I holster my 642 my thumb automatically goes where the hammer would be if it were exposed.

I also prefer the triggers on DA semi-autos, with the DAK probably being my favorite. I'm basically a DA revolver guy. However, the NY1/"-" combo in the Glock worked well for me in that regard.

I'll readily admit that it may not be completely rational, but I'm not completely comfortable with striker-fired guns that are essentially cocked-and-unlocked SA semi-autos. I'm not saying I would never own or carry one, but again I would prefer a hammer-fired DA semi-auto.

As a self-taught concealed carrier, I learned by trial and error what works best for me by practicing stress drills.

I started out with a revolver, but short-stroked the trigger under stress.
Then a single action semi-auto, but consistency with the safety was an issue under stress.
Then a striker-fired, but felt the trigger was too lite for safe 4:00 IWB carry.
Then a DA/SA decocker wo/safety solved my problems of use under stress. A revolver-like heavy first pull with a short reset gives me error-free point-and-shoot simplicity without a safety.

It took me practicing with all four types of actions to to identify what works best for me.

There is one striker-fired concealed carry pistol that I'm familiar with, that offers the DA/SA decocker wo/safety. The Walther P99C AS. I'd EDC that Walther if I couldn't have my CZ DA/SA.

I like shooting everything that I can operate safely, but for EDC I'm only consistent with one action type under stress.

People who don't like the look
People who collect
People who prefer hammer fired
People who want manual safety
People who just don't like change
People who ......

I like em and find that I'm faster and more accurate with them l, especially on the first shot. I have both hammer and striker. As well as metal and polymer guns. It's good to be familiar with many different guns but it's also good to just have one and know it inside out.

I look at guns as tools and whatever works best is what works best. I've always said that if they come up with a reliable gun made from cardboard I'd buy it too

For me, I think that it is more the result of training. I am not fond of the concept of striker fired handguns first and foremost, because I started pistol shooting as a target shooter. I was weened on a 1911 and K Masterpieces. My belief is that what you train with most influences your proficiency. For me, I don't like the trigger on striker fired pistols, nor do I like shooting the polymer frames. I prefer the heft of metal frames and wood grips.

Additionally, since most of my target revolver shooting is SA, it is comparable to my 1911. I get my desired sight picture, then squeeze the trigger. I don't have to stage (if that is the proper term) the trigger, get the sight picture, then squeeze the trigger. I prefer when each and every shot is identical. I can tolerate a DA/SA semi-auto, but I don't like DAO.

I have no use for striker fired pistols, I only have one, a Custom Ruger LCP pocket pistol. I carry it in my pocket around the farm. Everything else I own, revolver or pistol, has a hammer. All of my pistols are DA/SA, my preferred caliber is .45acp. This is just my personal preference and what I was trained on.

Since I retired, I carry a revolver exclusively by choice. However, in 26 years in LE I carried a revolver for the first 14 years. My department converted to the S&W 5906 (a boat anchor!), then the SIG P220, the the GLOCK22/23. We switched to the 5906 because of the trend, to the 220 because officers hated the 5906. After about 4-5 years with the 220 we started a switch to the 22/23. Some officers felt the Glock fit their hands better. But in this switch we allowed officers to retain the the 220 if preferred or go to the Glock. During all this time we allowed officers to carry personal weapons, as long as they were 9mm, 40 or 45 and Armorer safety checked. about a dozen officers switched to the 1911. I was a Firearms Instructor and was involved in all of these weapon changes and can tell you this.
I saw more AD/NDs with the 1911 and Glocks than any other weapon. Each one was because the officer had their finger on the trigger as they started to re-holster. Never saw this happen with revolvers of the SIG or 5906, that long DA pull does help.

I find most striker fired pistols clunky. The triggers aren't very good compared to a 1911.

The triggers on DAO and DA/SA pistols are miserable devices compared to those on a 1911. They simply aren't very good in my applications.

I've seen more negligent discharges with striker fired pistols than with all other sorts combined, including some that resulted in life threatening injuries for the operator.

Striker fired pistols seem simpler to use than a 1911 so folks tend not to develop the gun handling skills that leads to good, safe gun handling. We hear folks complaining about thumb safeties: a good sign the complainer hasn't much gun handling skill.

I have only one striker fired gun, a recent purchase, a Kahr CW 380. Still in the process of testing the reliability of the gun.
It has a lot going for it, it's small, light and has an awesome DA-like loooong trigger so no real chance of a AD.
I had planned on it being my new summer carry, as I don't like to carry anything larger than a J, and the Kahr hides way better.
Recent events have me rethinking my carry options though.

My issue with striker fired pistols for CCW is that my confidence level is not very good that I may have an AD/ND. However, after purchasing a new Glock 19 last year, I had my gunsmith replace the standard trigger spring with the New York 1 spring which increased the trigger pull. I also had him replace the stock connector to the 3.5 lb connector. I now have a very deliberate, pronounced and constant trigger pull that I feel completely safe CCW'ing. Fast forward, I recently purchased an S&W Shield that has a fairly stiff trigger pull and I got the model with the thumb safety, so with that combo, my fears of an AD/ND have rapidly faded with strikers and the right combinations of springs.

My issue with striker fired pistols for CCW is that my confidence level is not very good that I may have an AD/ND. However, after purchasing a new Glock 19 last year, I had my gunsmith replace the standard trigger spring with the New York 1 spring which increased the trigger pull. I also had him replace the stock connector to the 3.5 lb connector. I now have a very deliberate, pronounced and constant trigger pull that I feel completely safe CCW'ing. Fast forward, I recently purchased an S&W Shield that has a fairly stiff trigger pull and I got the model with the thumb safety, so with that combo, my fears of an AD/ND have rapidly faded with strikers and the right combinations of springs.

You need to move up here to moonbat Massachusetts! All of our handgun triggers are required to suck bigtime before the gun gets full approval for us to purchase.

On the other hand, our anti-2A AG lady hates Glocks and is keeping them banned in Massachusetts (except for cops) despite the fact that most of them are on our EOPSS approved handgun roster.

Striker-fired pistols come in a lot of different flavors. Some with no safeties, grip safeties, thumb safeties... and triggers that are quite a bit different from one to another. The Kimber feels sorta like a glassy smooth DA revolver trigger. And.... some ain't gots no plastic frame.

hdtwice,
Do you have a specific concern or are you just looking for opinions?

There are a couple of things to like about striker fired guns:

When you need to fire the gun, it will fire (barring mechanical failure or failure of the cartridge). A hammer fired gun can have the hammer blocked. This is a technique used in close quarters. If you can get your hand on the hammer, the gun won't fire. It's impossible to get your hand on the striker without disassembling the gun. So, the gun will fire at least once when the trigger is pulled; every time.

It won't fire unless the trigger is pulled. You can drop it (not Sig or Taurus), hit it with a hammer, or shake it and it just won't fire. The striker block and trigger safety do a very good job in preventing discharge unless the trigger is pulled.

They can be had with a thumb safety. For the, "A gun isn't safe without a thumb safety" crowd, it's available.

In fact, the only downside to the striker fired pistol is the trigger. Usually they have marginal triggers. Because they usually employ some kind of transfer bar and that bar flexes as the trigger is pressed, the trigger feel is kind of mushy. With some upgrades, or a Walther, the triggers can be quite nice. Get past this and there is little to have issue with.

I have no qualms either way. Warm weather I carry a revolver. Cold weather I carry a Glock. I do have my preference but platform really doesn't matter to me. I can and have carried and shot them all effectively except single action revolver.

It's all personal preference. That preference should be based on your experience or lack thereof. What works for you is all that should matter.

I find most striker fired pistols clunky. The triggers aren't very good compared to a 1911.

The triggers on DAO and DA/SA pistols are miserable devices compared to those on a 1911. They simply aren't very good in my applications.

I've seen more negligent discharges with striker fired pistols than with all other sorts combined, including some that resulted in life threatening injuries for the operator.

Striker fired pistols seem simpler to use than a 1911 so folks tend not to develop the gun handling skills that leads to good, safe gun handling. We hear folks complaining about thumb safeties: a good sign the complainer hasn't much gun handling skill.

Striker fired pistols are inexpensive so have a built in attraction.

So in other words it's ok to keep your finger on the trigger as long as you have a thumb safety? I honestly don't see a difference. Keep your fingers off the trigger and neither gun will go off. This should be beaten into you regardless of the gun or how many levers it has. Having plenty of gun handling skills and constantly taking classes I found out I'm faster when I don't play with levers. Having long fingers means the thumb safety is back almost by the web between my thumb and index finger and not by the pad area. I have to twist my thumb back and break my grip in order to use the safety. With a striker fired it's point and shoot. No problems shooting rapid fire and keeping all shot a small area from 15 to 25 yards. I can't speak for 50 yards because I have no place to shoot that far.

Having owned and still own 1911s I really don't see a difference in triggers. At least not anything "miserable" 1911 triggers are slightly shorter but that's about it. None of my factory striker fired guns have heavy clunky triggers.

Is it bulls eye competition worthy? No but that's emptying a mag pretty quickly with a Glock 22

Here's my 1911. See how far back the safety is? And that's a extended safety

There are 2 striker pistols in the house. A S&W 9 mm shield for the wife and a .45 ACP Springfield XD I haven't shot in 12 years.
Just prefer steel pistols, 1911, BHP, PPK type.
Then again I have a lot of revolvers and don't loose fired shells with them...

Call me an old fart,wait I am an old fart. But having grew up with the 1911 platform, Sig P6, Beretta 92FS, CZ82, and a few other hammer fired pistols I see no need to go with non visible hammerless striker fired pistol. Got so used to shooting a hammer fired pistol and at my age I'm not about to rush out and get a striker fired pistol. Frank

They are inaccurate when compared to my EDC revolver and slow to draw and shoot compared to my EDC revolver DA.

Challenge accepted! Come on down and lets test to see just how accurate and fast you are with the strapped in DA revolver. I'm having a hard time believing that's faster than a semi-auto in an open top holster. Still, it is possible and I want to see it.

In my opinion, the first is the most difficult and that is born out by how few have attempted followed by even fewer who have succeeded. Still, they are fun and are decent ways to practice. If you like shooting, try something different and give my challenges a shot (pun intended). You, or anyone, may have fun.

In fact, the only downside to the striker fired pistol is the trigger. Usually they have marginal triggers.

I am really about 50/50 on this, Rast. Sure, the Glock's trigger isn't as good from a rangetime perspective. But it's forgiving.

A DAO can be short-stroked to create a stoppage, and the 1911's straight-back trigger is about the only unergonomic thing on the gun. Most striker-fired pistols are easy and forgiving to operate, even if the relatively squishy pulls and crunchy breaks aren't as easy to shoot pretty groups with.

I'd much rather have a traditional DA/SA gun. I just feel more "comfortable" carrying a long first shot DA trigger pull. But I still find that when I do carry any automatic bigger than a Ruger LCP, it's a Glock. The combination of weight, size efficiency, reliability, etc, make the Glocks the best choice for me.

When I started concentrating on SD and carry guns, I had all DAO striker fired. My son wanted a certain pistol which happened to be an SA/DA hammer fired job. I REALLY like that setup.

If the hammer is down you can either pull the trigger for the first DA shot or pull back the hammer for all to be SA shots. You can also see where the hammer is. (I do have a Springfield with an indicator for the position of the striker). I like the decock ability. I want more guns like this.

I personally do not have anything against striker fired in itself, but for carrying I prefer having a hammer on my gun. I like being able to place my thumb on the hammer when holstering so I know if the trigger were to get caught on something and start to move. Many feel it is not necessary if you are paying attention, but for me it is an added precaution that I like.

You can toss most polymer pistols into a cement mixer, tumble them for a few hours, and still have a working pistol when you're done. You can bash them with hammers, drive over them with trucks...whatever you want.

Considering that I could not survive the same treatment, I figure that a polymer frame is tough enough.

I think the "I don't trust plastic because its a toy that can't take abuse" is a bit of a strawman that is often used by poly framer gun shooters themselves. The durability of modern plastics, high grade, is well known and respected. I don't see people refusing to buy modern power tools because they are plastic housed, and any such concerns about poly framed handguns has abated since they were the new kid on the block. I think its an easy way to dodge the entire range of issues.

If you don't mind carrying extra weight, weight is the best thing you can have in a gun, it steadies itself and reduces recoil absolutely, instead of just changing the way the recoil affects you. I'd rather have a PPK for a small auto loader than a new poly any day of the week, and not just because of hammer/striker issues. You can brag about how little your gun ways, then pay the price every time you fire it. Yes, there are some who shoot their airweight every weekend, but you are more likely to shoot 10,000 rounds a year out of a N, L, or steel K frame than you will the other.

Steel, like the hammer/striker issue comes down total feel. I don't like the way plastic guns feel, or how they recoil, its awful, and the heavy slide and light frame make the gun unbalanced. The steel feels better, and so does the way the sear and trigger all work with the traditional hammers. No matter how they can put their superiority on paper, in the hand and in its function, the steel frame hammer gun has a synergy and a function that can't be described in simple metrics, and the more I shoot modern strikers the more their advantages feel supposed than real.

I like hitting a wall in my trigger, form my military Mausers, to my high end Mauser action CZ, to my HK delayed roller locks, and down to my hammer long guns, and in my auto loaders and revolvers. The trigger pull on my Tommy gun is, in theory, poor, but in practice exquisite and wonderful A smooth, beautiful wall break on these guns is the best trigger pull I can hope for, personally. The way they resist, they way they work, the way it breaks. Every striker I've aver touched is an abomination.

I don't like the way the trigger resists, or how it breaks, or anything at all about it. Shooting one is a miserable experience compared to the old fashioned hammer. I've shot very well with a standard Glock, and one my friend had with a good trigger job and light trigger pull, I did very well with them. But I would not own one unless I was forced to.

I might buy a HK Mk23 some day, but i hate spending that kinda money. I might buy a striker fired steel frame auto loader, if they ever make a high end one that is well respected and earned its marks, and is full weight and size. But after firing striker poly frames, I have no intent whatsoever to buy one.

They can say all they want about fiberglass hammers absorbing shock better, I think they ring my hands worse than hickory. They can say all they want about how much better the striker is than the hammer, and I'll agree on the internal aspects with them 100%, but the way they actually function in my hand, I have no interest in them for the time being. I'm going to keep my 1911, Hi Power, and right now I'm still considering a PPK/S for collection and ballistic test purposes before I would even put a minor thought into buying a newer one.

it ain't always about improvement, at some point they don't improve things, they just change things. The new change might be better in some ways, but consider it could also be worse. Yeah, smokeless>blackpowder might be a valid argument, but striker>hammer has yet to prove itself absolutely.

I was fine with striker-fired guns until my experience with a Glock 33 in the late Nineties: the early .357 SIG Lawman ammo from CCI would throw primer sealant gunk back into that big, fat, oversized opening of the striker channel. This, combined with Glock's (generally sensible, unless you're using high pressure ammo that clogs up your striker channel with primer sealant) admonition to not clean the striker channel eventually resulted in light strikes.

I learned to clean the striker channel (thanks to those guys on the earliest version of Glock Talk in '97 or so - I've been a member there FOREVER!) the right way and never had problems again, but the issue (together with the no second-strike capability - some designs have since remedied this) put me off striker-fired guns for probably 10 years.

I'm back to being just fine with them now. I frankly like only having to learn the single trigger pull. Not that two pulls is nearly the rocket science that Col. Cooper seemed to believe it was in those heady days of the Wundernine . . . .

But you do flip it up? And that's the problem. And do you hold your hand like that when shooting?

Yes, I hold my hand like that when shooting. In fact, the majority of 1911 shooters do. If a gun has a thumb safety, this is where the thumb should be. Here is the full firing grip:

There are three major benefits:

It forces the shooter to have as high a hold as possible. A high hold helps to reduce muzzle flip and control recoil. The higher the grip the better.

It ensures the safety is removed when it's time to shoot. If this is your natural grip, the safety will be very easy to switch off.

It ensures the safety stays off. If you hold under the safety, it can be accidentally switched on. That would be bad in a competition and cost time. It would be deadly in a self-defense scenario.

The only time the safety needs to be flipped up or on is after the scene is clear or the stage of competition is over. At that point you have time. But, yes, I flip it up. Just drop the thumb below and switch it up.

These pictures are with a 1911, but they apply to any handgun with a thumb safety. So, yes, I use the same grip with my M&P 45, which is a striker fired gun with a thumb safety.

OK, yes, by using "properly" I was being over zealous.

Are you hitting your intended target all the time?

Do you always remember to remove the safety when shooting?

Can you place a controlled pair in the thoracic cavity at 7 yards in under 2.3 seconds while starting from concealment?

If you can honestly answer yes to all those questions, don't change a thing and ignore everything I've said here. If you can't, consider altering your grip.

There simply isn't a perfect way to do it for everyone. Everyone is different and we all do things a little differently. I've listed reasons why I use this grip, but you may do just fine with the way you've been doing it. All that really matters is hitting the intended target in the proper time to defeat the bad guy. This is the Concealed Carry forum after all.

Thanks, I have seen your shooting challenges before on the forum. My shooting is prominently featured in Montana news during an interview.

There is online video of my shooting speed, witnessed by independent third party observers. All my shooting for record is third party witnessed.

As an example, the snub witnessed shooting example below was shot at ten yards. The upper left is a double tap. The four lower shots were fired DA rapid fire, both from shot timer. Ammo: 240 grn Hornady JHP/XTP.

1 * yes
2 * yes
3 * more complicated than a simple yes or no. Ranges her don't allow that and open land to practice is none existent. Best I can do at a typical range is low ready and not shoot too fast for them to notice. Once in a while it's ok but can't make a habit of it.

Due to my hand size/shape I can't do guns with small grips, or safeties set far back. To have the grip you show I'd have to let go of the grip safety. I know it sounds weird and hard to explain in text. I need a long trigger reach and a thick grip. Grips like Beretta 92 with over molded rubber grips, G20/21 even better with rubber sleeves! To grip high I need to have my fingers all the way out.

It has to do with my hands heres a picture to explain what I mean.

That's as straight as i can keep my fingers

Natural Vulcan greeting!!

And as compact as I can make a fist

As opposed to this

Both hands are like that. So to use the thumb safety I either have to let go of the grip safety and twist my grip or use it between the 2nd knuckle and the web between the thumb and index finger

Sorry if I missed the major "Thread Drift Warning", but I don't think the OP had a whole lot to do with Mongo-caliber "Griz" revolvers, or blatant self-promotion of their usage...

OK, to get back on track... As of this point in time, I own all the types of handguns questioned in the OP save for a de-cocker, and I've owned a few of them. I am comfortable with them all and have no problems with any of the safety configurations or their methods of denting a cartridge primer. They are all "safe" unless YOU screw up, or there is a mechanical failure. ADs and NDs "caused" by holsters, clothing snags, drops, etc., are operator errors, not something inherent to the gun.

As already stated, whatever you choose to shoot is up to you. It is your obligation to everyone else to learn how to handle it in a safe manner. This includes your choice of proper holster, belt, clothing, et al.